Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[Ziggurat]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

Why? Explain.

Your argument was that she was merely stating what she thought might be the reality we have to work with. But she is doing more than that: she is expressing a preference.

What am I missing? So far as I can see, your first and third points do contradict one another completely, but if you wish to clarify your points, I'm listening.

One can oppose consequences of discrimination without opposing the fundamental axioms needed to justify it. Thus, no contradiction. She seems to be very interested in the former, but not so much the latter.

But at no point did she say that this was intrinsic to her race and sex.

Not explicitly. And yet, that remains a logical conclusion from her words. To repeat and clarify on what I said before, it's quite possible that she does not believe in such conclusions, but if so, she has done her own position a disservice by the way she has framed her argument. That is not a cardinal sin, but it is a mistake.

It is, really, likely, given the world we live in, that a Hispanic woman will know more about discrimination, from the sharp end, than a white man. We may wish that it was not so, but so it is.

But she is not merely talking about personal experience, she's talking about what judgments such a person would make, and hence their qualification for the job in question. Which, ironically, could justify discriminating on the basis of race and gender when it comes to making what amounts to a hiring decision.

 

[Neally]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

So you would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Her nom, an anti-take: tokenism, but a twofer tokenism deal
Her nom, pro-take: makes the SC look more like America. Came up from humble means and done good. (I really like that last part).

My general take: We don't need any more effin' New Yawkers on the SC, but that's outta my hands, so be it.

OK, it's a wash on all those scores.

Her qualifications: in order.

Obama: liberal
Prospective justice: liberal

No surprise.

Don't see the GOP having much ammo to shoot at her, unless the decision on the NH firefighters ignites some sort of Congressional blaze. Bet the under on that.

Betting the over on a nom, with little Congresional friction and a hell of a lot of noise among the pundits, and various blogosphere pots boiling over.

What she did for baseball, however wonderful that was, could not save baseball for me.

The '94 strike ended it for me: no more of my money spent on

Baseball fan stuff, MLB
Baseball tickets, MLB

I have supported a couple of high school, college, and AA clubs, but the bigs get

No More Of My Money.

Ever Again.

DR

 

[SezMe]

Aren't the more vocal and riled up Republicans making a big mistake here. Calling her unqualified, inexperienced, activist, liberal, radical, etc. all seem more than a small stretch to me. Sure, you can question some of her previous calls and that is fair game. But the labels - not so much.

The problem, it seems to me, is the NEXT nominee. Suppose Obama picks a REAL liberal strong on, say, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. All the Republican flash points. They'll scream liberal, activist, radical and all the others labels and the reaction might be, *yawn*, "been there, done that".

I think from a purely political perspective, the Republicans are making a tactical mistake here. I think they should save the big guns for the big fight which is likely to come.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't see the GOP having much ammo to shoot at her, unless the decision on the NH firefighters ignites some sort of Congressional blaze. Bet the under on that.

Potentially more significant I think is Didden v. Village of Port Chester. I think most people would disagree with the ruling in that case, but it's also not the sort of topic (property rights) which gets the rabble to man the barricades, so to speak, so it may not end up having much effect. But I hope she at least gets grilled about it.

 

[corplinx]

The basic qualification for being on the Supreme Court is: breathing.

I think Presidents should have their nominees rubber stamped unless there is something defectively wrong. If the hearings are ceremony instead of special interest funded slandering, I think some people may take their vote for president more seriously once they see the real consequences.

 

[Cicero]

Aren't the more vocal and riled up Republicans making a big mistake here. Calling her unqualified, inexperienced, activist, liberal, radical, etc. all seem more than a small stretch to me. Sure, you can question some of her previous calls and that is fair game. But the labels - not so much.

The problem, it seems to me, is the NEXT nominee. Suppose Obama picks a REAL liberal strong on, say, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. All the Republican flash points. They'll scream liberal, activist, radical and all the others labels and the reaction might be, *yawn*, "been there, done that".

I think from a purely political perspective, the Republicans are making a tactical mistake here. I think they should save the big guns for the big fight which is likely to come.

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?

 

[SezMe]

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?

No and no. Now, would you like to speak to the substance of my post or ask more questions?

 

[SezMe]

I didn't insult you. Please don't do it to me.

Oh, quit whining and speak to my point. Or if you think I'm just too insulting to respond to, please discuss Joe's points in post #120.

 

[Cicero]

No and no. Now, would you like to speak to the substance of my post or ask more questions?

If your analysis is correct about how the Republicans are acting to the Sonia nominee, then it must also be correct about how the Dems reacted to the Roberts and Alito nominations. How could the Dems further ratchet up their vilification of these guys when they were already in full vitriol if Bush 43 had nominated another Bork?

 

[fishbob]

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?

Nope.
How could you even think that after Bush nominated Meirs?
Bush wanted to stuff the court with idealogues instead of justices, and he was caught and stopped, and forced to temper the idealogy with some level of competence and judicial talent.

Initially, it appears that Obama is looking for justices.

 

[Tricky]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician. It may surprise some very naive people that judges aren't above politics. But the judicial decisions, that's the key to what they will do on the bench.

I see she has had a few decisions overturned, some by a very split Supreme Court, but overall, she's been reliably non-activist. I don't think anyone can paint her as an extremist. I think the GOP would be well advised to save their ammunition on this one. They will only wind up hurting themselves if they drive women and Hispanics even further away from their party by trying to trash a very well-respected jurist.

 

[Cicero]

Nope.
How could you even think that after Bush nominated Meirs?
Bush wanted to stuff the court with idealogues instead of justices, and he was caught and stopped, and forced to temper the idealogy with some level of competence and judicial talent.

Initially, it appears that Obama is looking for justices.

The only POTUS who actually tried to "stuff" the court was FDR. He wanted to raise the number of SCOTUS justices to 15. But you prove the point in that the Dems went ballistic over Meirs, Alito and Roberts.

 

[Neally]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician.

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."?

 

[Tricky]

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."?

If it was said in the context of a speech to an audience of white males, no not really. I'd put it down as "playing to the crowd". A political speech, not a judicial decision. The key is what you do, not what you say under the glare of spotlights.

 

[SezMe]

Neally, suppose there were no white males on the Supreme Court. Would it be ok with you if that demographic advocated that a white male be appointed? Ceteris paribus, as our economist friends like to say.

 

[linusrichard]

Potentially more significant I think is Didden v. Village of Port Chester. I think most people would disagree with the ruling in that case, but it's also not the sort of topic (property rights) which gets the rabble to man the barricades, so to speak, so it may not end up having much effect. But I hope she at least gets grilled about it.

Didden was crappy. Kelo was crappy. Eminent domain is crappy. Crap crap crappy. But as I see it, Didden is a plus for Sotomayor. What's the big complaint? "Empathy," right? That she's going to decide cases according to her feelings, and not according to The Law Of The Land. Seems like Didden is a perfect refutation of that complaint. She took the crappy crappy law of Kelo and applied it to the facts of Didden in a way that she could not possibly have enjoyed doing. Criticizing Sotomayor for Didden is essentially saying that you think judges should do what they think is "fair" according to their own personal feelings, rather than apply The Law. In other words, it's the exact opposite criticism that she's already catching.

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."?

Can we please not pretend that race and gender are in any sense symmetrical in this country?

 

[Neally]

If it was said in the context of a speech to an audience of white males, no not really. I'd put it down as "playing to the crowd".

Fair enough. It just seems that when the roles are reversed, a lot of people get pretty agitated.

Neally, suppose there were no white males on the Supreme Court. Would it be ok with you if that demographic advocated that a white male be appointed?

Sure, why not? And that is relevant to my point how?

 

[corplinx]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues.

And I think less than that. I think that unless there is a major defect with the person, their nomination should sail through. I think starting with the Judge Bork nomination, the parties realized they could turn a boring constitutional hearing into a circus trial.

Sotomayer may reap 8 years of bad karma from judicial obstructionism by the Democrats. If she does, I won't shed a tear. However, it is my personal opinion that the current judicial confirmation system is terrible and needs to go back to being boring.

If people have to live the with the judges president's pick, maybe they will think more before pulling the lever. Presidents after all base their campaigns on all sorts of things they are not constitutionally responsible for "my stimulus plan is bettar!). However, running foreign policy and picking judges are pretty much what we get.

I don't the GOP are going to be the ones to "cease fire" however since they've gotten the short end of the stick for so long on nominations.

In my ideal world, she would get some cursory questions and then a gavel. Better yet, answer the questions in private interviews and just band the gavel.

 

[Brainster]

Per Politico, don't expect a fight unless something more comes up:

Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

As Corplinx has said or implied, elections should have consequences, although I am glad that the consequences of this particular choice are not all that significant (since she is replacing Souter).